Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Mauritius reservations to the CRPD and its impact on rights of persons with disabilities

It was recently I had an opportunity to
visit Mauritius and interact with the warm people there. My interaction was
mostly with people with disabilities ands their organizations. There struggles
and challenges seemed to be the same as ours and their advocacy movement had
familiar traits. I for one felt very at home and one with them.

It was during our discussions while
preparing a stakeholders report from the Universal Periodic Review of Mauritius
did we realise that Mauritius while ratifying the convention had three
reservations. The more I think of these reservations the more amazed I get by
how the State could ratify on one side and make these reservations they did on
the other sides. The reservations seem to go against the principles of the
convention. I cannot help but express myself aloud my opinion of these
reservations on people with disabilities in Mauritius with a Disclaimer that I
am not an expert in human right law and the expression is solely my thoughts.

Reservation
1

At
the time when the State signed the convention in 2007 put a reservation on
Article 11 Situations of risks and Humanitarian Emergencies. The state said
that "The Government of the Republic of Mauritius (…) does not consider
itself bound to take measures specified in article 11 unless permitted by
domestic legislation expressly providing for the taking of such measures."

What this reservation
seems to imply is that the State will not take any measures to ensure the protection and safety of
persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed
conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters
unless their domestic law specially suggests that they must provide them
protection and safety to persons with disabilities.So would this on ground mean that at the time
of an emergency the State will protect all other people except persons with
disabilities?More over with this
reservation there is an implication on Article 9 1(b) that talks about removing
barriers to make emergency services accessible.

Reservation
2

For
accessibility they say -“The Republic of
Mauritius declares that it shall not for the time being take any of the
measures provided for in Articles 9.2 (d) and (e) in view of their heavy
financial implication.”

Accessibility for all persons with disabilities is a
pre-requisite for their inclusion. Without making provision for accessibility
realization of a number of articles in the convention including living
independently, education, employment, sports and culture, personal mobility, access
to justice etc. is not possible. Accessibility is one of the cross cutting
articles and is also one of the general principles; hence a reservation on any
aspect of accessibility will effect most other articles.

Article 9 2(d) talks about making public signage
available in public places available in braille and in easy to read formats.
And article 9 2(e) talks about availability of live assistance and
intermediaries such as sign language interpreters, scribes, and readers etc. to
make facilities more accessible.

These reservations create discrimination between the disability
constituencies as signage in Braille is largely used by blind persons and easy
to read formats is most required for persons with intellectual disabilities.Also while live assistance and intermediaries
may required by any person with disabilities, but they are very much required
for Deaf persons, blind persons and deafblind persons to enable them to have
access to information and be able to communicate effectively.

Reservations to these two articles would have an
adverse effect on the implementation of Article 21 of the convention that apart
from other things talks about recognition and promotion of sign language and
braille to enable all persons with disabilities to have freedom of expression
and opinion, and access to information.

Additionally “heavy financial implication” as a reason
for these reservations seems unfair considering that article 4.2 of the
convention requires the state to a use to maximum of its available resources to
progressively achieve full realization of economic social and cultural rights
and without accessibility these rights cannot be achieved.Considering that implementation has to be achieved
progressively and not be achieved overnight then why have the reservations at
all.

Reservation
3

With
regard Education, they have a reservation to Article 24.2 (b), the Republic of
Mauritius has a policy of inclusive education which is being implemented
incrementally alongside special education.”

In discussion the DPO’s expressed that while education
is free for all children but for children with disabilities since they are
admitted only to special schools run by NGO’s, they were required to pay some
amount towards their education for books, special aids etc. Moreover since few
communities have special schools there is an additional transport costs that
parents of children with disabilities have to incur. This transport costs are
high as the bus company charged for the entire year including the holidays.

Children with disabilities having to pay for what is
free for other children is discriminatory. Moreover inclusive education is not
being incrementally provided as claimed by the state and how can it be if there
is a reservation to Article 9.2(e). For inclusion in schools there is a definite
need for live assistance and intermediary services.

Having put a reservation on the article 24.2(4) that says
“Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary
education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities
in which they live;” the State seems to have comfortably abstained from its
duty to provide inclusive education. Special education is highly prevalent and
that too not available in the child’s community. Moreover special education is
of poor quality and costs money to children with disabilities. It seems
difficult that this situation will change in the near future as by making this
reservation the state seems to have boldly stated their plan to continue with
special education and discriminatory practices.

The first step towards inclusion must be for the State
to not have such reservations. These reservations make their intent clear hence
it is important for the DPO’s to advocate and have these reservations taken
away thereby, taking a step closer to progressively achieving full inclusion of
all persons with disabilities.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Author of 'No Looking Back' I am the founder of AccessAbility. I became disabled at the age of 22 in a car accident. Life changed completely after I became disabled and today I am happily able to say that it was a good change for me. I love traveling, seeing new cultures and meeting new people. I also enjoy writing and expressing my views on issues mostly relating to disability. started my career in a hotel as a hotel management graduate but after my accident I retraining in Architecture technology with a specialization in Inclusive Environments.
www.AccessAbility.co.in